CFPB Creates New Office To Focus On Diversity In The Financial Industry

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a new appointment today, that of Stuart Ishimaru as the leader of the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion at the bureau. Previously, Ishimaru was the acting chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So he knows his stuff, ostensibly.

The new office will aim to promote diversity at the agency and within the financial services industry, reports the L.A. Times. Ishimaru’s position is a requirement of the 2010 financial reform law.

CFPB Director Richard Cordray says the new office will work to develop standards for assessing the diversity policies in the financial services industry. However, it won’t be able to write regulations to dictate how financial services companies hire employees.

Critics are concerned that new CFPB offices will add to the cost of running the bureau, but Cordray says the agencies will “find a way to collect data without imposing an undue regulatory burden.”

Ishimaru says the new office will aim to call attention to those in the industry who are doing things right, with respect to diversity.

“It isn’t forcing people to do it, but it lets them know how to do it,” he said.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

Cordray says the agencies will “find a way to collect data without imposing an undue regulatory burden.”

Yeah, right. Define ‘undue’. Define ‘burden’.

“It isn’t forcing people to do it, but it lets them know how to do it,” he said.

Hey, government – How about you stop treating us like little children? We already know how to ‘promote diversity’, and we don’t need you spending our money to tell us how to do it. If we aren’t doing it already, it’s because we don’t want to.

Minorities are being underserved by the nation’s education programs, that’s why white collar diversity is low- not because of some crotchety old white guy at the top going “we don’t want THOSE people.” Still, I don’t like the implication that anyone who doesn’t actively seek to associate with particular groups automatically must hate those groups. “You’re either with us or against us.”

So another department gets added to another government bureaucracy. More tax dollars spent, more business money spent reporting to said agency (I know Corday claims otherwise, but that’s pure BS, who decides what is undue?). Then, once its set up it doesn’t even have any teeth, it just gives a pat on the back to the employers who hire the most minorities and women. It is like Corday is bending over backwards to give those opposed to this agency ammunition.

“It isn’t forcing people to do it, but it lets them know how to do it,” he said.

Wait, what? So this is all just a position to gather data to make helpful suggestions but lacks the power to actually do anything? We already have an entire department to do that sir, it’s called the USDA.

Also – why is this position a requirement of the 2010 law? I thought this department was created to protect consumers from the shady dealings in the financial industry, not protect minorities/women from employment discrimination in that industry.

And what does minority inclusion within the financial industry have to do with consumer financial protection? I am not saying that diversity is not important but is there not a multitude of other government agencies tasked with this?

I’m all for the CFPB. I strongly supported the passage of the bill that created it,, and the congressmen in my district that voted against it? Not voting for it was a big reason I wrote off voting for them.

But I want to know why one of the first acts the CFPB has done is something not in any way related to why it was created in the first place. Give me a break. How about focusing on actually writing some of the rules laid down in the bill (IE, actually getting the damned thing running) before something like this?

Aha! We critics of the CFPB have been proven correct! The goal of the CFPB is not to protect taxpayers but to increase the size and cost and intrusiveness of government! Now the CFPB is getting into the Affirmative Action game? How is that protecting taxpayers from financial fraud?